Bridge Meeting
Quincy, FL
4-28-09

Meeting 1: Gadsden Emergency
Management Personnel



3/27/09
Personnel from health department,
EMS, city and county emergency
management,
Meeting 2: Gadsden citizens


3/27/09
Expressing their opinions on past
emergencies and sharing their
experiences
Both groups
answered
same list of
questions

Recent Experiences with Natural Disasters




Existing Resources



How well community responded / preparation level
Least prepared for disasters
Assistance available
Local organizations involved in helping community
prepare
Other organizations who could be involved
Assessing the EPD Project



Are the steps reasonable / appropriate?
Value of “community coach”
Is the vulnerability assessment process useful?

Session 1: Some Areas of Agreement

Session 2: Some Areas of Differences

Session 3: Opinions on the EPD Project
Responses / comments from first two meetings will
be shown, then break into discussion groups for
more in-depth conversation
Issues / topics that were
consistent in both meetings





Tropical Storm (1985, 2008)
Fires (2006, 2007)
Hurricanes (1985, 2005)
Floods (2009)
Tornadoes

Most Common
Loss of utilities
 Wind damage
 Roads washed out/damaged
 Trees down
 Snakes/wildlife displaced


Elderly






Lack of planning
Lack of mobility
Living in rural areas
Poor communication
Handicapped/Disabled
Non-English speaking populations


Spanish
Migrant workers

Mostly Yes


Acknowledged strength of
community


But, sources of information used were
varied (TV, Weather Channel, EOC)
Personal contacts
Need for improved outside
communication noted

Those who could help:






Churches
Local businesses
Fire dept auxiliaries
Local veterinarians, physicians, Park/Recs
Grocery Stores
Supervalue
Issues / topics where there
were inconsistencies
between groups

Some thought the community responded quite well



Some felt the community did not respond well



Well-trained combination of entire community
People know their roles
Lack of a plans / communication/ equipment
Some were very aware of Emergency Operations
Management (EOM) plans, others were not
Some knew immediately who to call / where to go, for
others the information was not obvious



Some were very aware of Emergency
Operations Management (EOM) plans, others
were not
Some saw the plan as a success for obtaining /
staging resources, others knew little about the
plan
Most agreed that educating the public about
these plans is problematic

Some saw very few local organizations that were
involved





Sheriff’s Office
Red Cross
Fire Department
Police
Others saw a lot more





Churches
Health Dept
Department of Human Services
Schools
State Gov’t
Feedback on the steps involved
and the community coach

Most were fairly optimistic
Felt it represented a good starting point
 Having an organized plan would help keep people
from panicking
 Very inclusive
 Good to look at areas that are at risk
 Useful for future planning
 Involvement of new people is useful, but
challenging
 Will encourage participation from larger
community groups


But some had a few problems with it
Getting community involvement might be
difficult
 Having enough volunteers to develop and
implement the plan would be challenging
 Would require some technical expertise and
assistance to implement
 Potential conflict between citizens groups
and official responders


Most generally thought it was a good idea
Would be necessary to have this person
 Good for motivation, and experience from other sites
 Some thought it should be someone from outside the
community; Others felt is should be someone from the
community


But there were a few problems noted





Community coach can’t do it all
Difficult for the coach to relate to community
Trust is an issue
Can’t have an overbearing personality
How would they be funded?!